Trusts Of The Family Home- Constructive Trusts

Front 1

Which statutory provision of the LPA 1925 sets out the purpose of constructive trusts?

Back 1

Section 53(2) LPA 1925- constructive trusts respond to unconscionability and are IMPOSED on parties through operation of law.

Front 2

Which case was the foundation of common intention constructive trusts? and what was the dicta?

Back 2

Gissing v Gissing [1971]
-a trusts will be construed when the trustee, by his words or conduct, has induced the beneficiary to:
i) act to his detriment; or
ii) in the reasonable belief that he was acquiring a beneficial interest in the land.

Front 3

Which model of Lord Denning's did the common intention constructive trust prevail over?

Back 3

The new model constructive trust

Front 4

What are the 2 requirements under acquisition for common intention constructive trusts?

Back 4

1) common intention; and
2) detrimental reliance

Front 5

Must a common intention be express or implied?

Back 5

either.

Front 6

What was the dicta in Lloyds Bank v Rossett [1991]?

Back 6

a house was bought in the husband's sole name and he provided all the capital.
The wife renovated and decorated the property.
The HL held that a common intention could be express or implied, however mere renovation was insufficient to establish an inferred common intention.

Front 7

Which case states that an express common intention will be an agreement, arrangement or understanding reached between the parties that the property was to be shared beneficially?

Back 7

Lloyds Bank v Rossett [1991]

Front 8

Which case stated that if the legal title owner led the other party to believe they would acquire an interest in the property, and express common intention would be found? (excuse case)

Back 8

Eves v Eves [1975]

Front 9

Which cases stated that an assurance that improvements to the cottage and business would 'benefit them both' was NOT an express common intention (too vague) and was also did not constitute an inferred common intention, as there was no direct financial contribution/ mortgage repayment?

Back 9

James v Thomas [2007]

Front 10

How difficult is it to establish and inferred common intention?

Back 10

difficult- very high hurdle.

Front 11

What does Lloyds Bank v Rosset [1991] state is necessary for an inferred common intention?

Back 11

direct financial contribution to purchase price or payment of mortgage installements.

Front 12

What was the dicta of Morris v Morris [2008]?

Back 12

It endorsed the strict approach taken in Lloyds Bank v Rossett/ James v Thomas.
-Inferred common intention will only be found in exceptional circumstances.

Front 13

What does Martin Dixon advocate may be a 3rd way of establishing a common intention constructive trust since Stack v Dowden [2007]?
How likely is it to be followed?

Back 13

"a common intention by examining the whole range of the parties' conduct in relation to the property and each other."

-very liberal approach that is unlikely to be followed and has not been endorsed by Morris v Morris and James v Thomas.

Front 14

why is there a 2nd requirement of detrimental reliance?

Back 14

because equity will not enforce a promise where there is no impact on the claimant. It must be unconscionable for the legal owner to deny the claimant's beneficial interest.

Front 15

Which case suggests that the finding of detrimental reliance is usually quite broad?
what could suffice as detrimental reliance?

Back 15

Grant v Edwards [1986]
-any conduct which is 'referable to their joint lives together' is sufficiently detrimental.
General household expenditure could display detrimental reliance as long as there is a causal connection between that and the common intention.

Front 16

How is detrimental reliance establish in cases of inferred common intention?

Back 16

the contribution itself doubles up as the detriment.

Front 17

What is the general approach taken to quantification in constructive trusts?

Back 17

much more liberal than the mathematical approach of resulting trusts.

Front 18

Which case states that 'the judge is to undertake a survey of the whole course of dealings between the parties relevant to their ownership and occupation of the property.'
-converted a 6.74% contribution into a half share.

Back 18

Midland Bank v Cooke (1995)

Front 19

What was the dicta of Oxley v Hiscock (2004)?
VERY IMPORTANT CASE

Back 19

If the parties had formulated an agreement as to the size of the shares, the court must give effect to this agreement in quantification .
-If there was no agreement then the court must not dream up a common intention, it must ask 'what is a fair share having regard to the whole course of dealings'- family law orientated approach to quantification hurdle.

Front 20

What did Stack v Dowden [2007] state about the decision in Oxley v Hiscock?

Back 20

It endorsed the decision but was wary of the concept of fairness.
-the search is still for what the parties must have intended in light of their conduct, ad the court should not abandon this is favour of a result which is fair.

Front 21

What was the approach taken in Jones v Kernott [2010] on the matter of quantification in constructive trusts? (despite the fact that the case actually concerned a joint legal title dispute)

Back 21

endorsed Oxely v Hiscock and Stack v Dowden- where there is no evidence of an agreement as to shares, the courts are permitted to have recourse to the concept of fairness.